Buffyverse Wiki:Central Discussion
2017 to Present Day Willow "Danielle" Rosenberg" Since hardly no one even realizes that "Danielle" is Willow's middle name, we need to make sure people aren't using this over and over again in articles. It could be said perhaps once on her main article, but that's it. Fan's know her simply as "Willow Rosenberg". QueenBuffy 20:40, December 9, 2017 (UTC) SO many and TOO many categories Hey everyone. Let's get a handle on all these categories. I just went through and found things like: "Buffy Comics" and "Buffy comics" on the same exact article. I cleaned them up, so now there is just "Buffy comics". We need to make sure we're not just making up categories. If anyone thinks a new category needs to be made, PLEASE let us admins and Bureau's discuss first. Also, we're going to start adding a single comic category to any article that pertains to something from a comic. I was reading something the other day and was like "I don't remember that episode"... and realized it was talking about something from a comic book. We need to make sure articles like that are categorized separately from the series. Hope this makes sense. :) I think we may just use "Buffy comics" and "Angel comics" for things like weapons or spells that are used in comic books, since that category is already made and we don't need to add anymore. QueenBuffy 21:25, December 9, 2017 (UTC) ::Guys this is crazy... we have "demons" and "demon species" as two categories. Why are there two?! They are the exact same thing. This is out of hand. I think we should pull up an entire list of categories to see what we're dealing with. lol QueenBuffy 22:55, December 9, 2017 (UTC) ::"Demon species" pertain to types of demons, whereas "Demons" (in its current use) is an umbrella category that contains "Demon species" AND individuals that are demons. Personally, I feel like "Demons" should just include the individuals instead of individuals+species, but then again if we follow that, we'd still need an umbrella term for both. FTWinchester (talk) 23:25, December 9, 2017 (UTC) ::I'm taking a look at all comic related categories, it seems so far that they're more confusing due to the number of articles related to the comics than an excess of categories. Although, there are indeed some articles outside their own categories, which I'm correcting right now. I don't know yet what should be done with vaguely named categories such as "Buffy comics", their intention is not clear. I used to apply it on articles about comic issues under the Buffy the Vampire Slayer title, similarly to "Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes", but there are so many comics that I don't know how useful this category can actually be. For now I think it's better to be maintained until it's created a proper category for these articles ("Buffy the Vampire Slayer single issues"?) and other parallel pertinent categories ("Fray comics", "Spike comics"). ::Ellesy (talk) 23:47, December 9, 2017 (UTC) :::Exactly, like I said, this is just wayyyy overwhelming to me. lol Oh, and I still don't see how "demon species" and "demons" were both made into two different categories. lol QueenBuffy 00:27, December 10, 2017 (UTC) ::About a category for comic-related articles, I don't get the necessity. It'd be like a distinction for articles that have any information from Angel for those who doesn't have the intention to watch the show. And a little absurd considering how the comics have talked about everything from the series, we'd end up including almost every article. For example, I noticed you added the article "Old One" to the category "Comic Canon", but it's a creature that was mentioned in "Welcome to the Hellmouth", and the comics just continued to add stories about it. It would be safer to assume the comics have mentioned every character and creature. I think knowing that a character has a lot of canon information from the comics wouldn't be helpful during the reading of an entire article, having a source for each information should be enough. ::On the demon/species thing, "Anya Jenkins" was a demon, "Vengeance demon" is a type of demon. The first would be categorized among other demon individuals, and the second among other demon species. It would be redundant to differentiate if we didn't have this much of articles about demons (440) and demon species (232). If it's necessary, changing the category "Demons" to "Demon individuals" would make this difference clear. ::Ellesy (talk) 01:08, December 10, 2017 (UTC) ::Just replaced the categories "Angel & Faith comics" and "Angel & Faith Comics" for the already existing category "Angel comics", since, despite the title change, the Angel & Faith comics are a continuation to Angel as much as After the Fall, and the return to the original title with Angel Season Eleven just corroborates it. ::I'm about to replace the category "Willow comics " with also already existing "Buffy comics ", since these comics were publishing directly under the Buffy the Vampire Slayer title, as featured in the covers. Also, the inclusion of "Willow & Tara" stories as "Willow comics" was already a stretch. ::I don't know if there'll be anything else to rearrange after this, but, as suggested by QueenBuffy , when I'm finished I'll list the categories used in comics, how they're supposed to work, and why would their use be relevant. ::Ellesy (talk) 04:02, December 10, 2017 (UTC) :::As far as the reasoning for "Comic Canon" I will try to explain it to you again. I don't read the comics and don't know much about them. When I browse articles (and I'm sure this has happened to other people), I've come upon something and been like "What is this? I don't remember this spell in any episode". The only category was "Ritual or Spells". If it had also had "Comic Canon" attached, I would have instantly realized, "OH.. it was in a comic, not in the series". It would be way less confusing for me and others who are not aware of the storyline in the comics. Also, because I do not know the comics... as a bureaucrat- if I see someone make a page, and let's say it's some spell I've never heard of and there is no reference to an episode, no reference at all (because a comic canon category isn't added), I'd delete the page because I'd assume it was just spam. I hope this makes better sense to you now. I don't know how else to explain it to you. QueenBuffy 04:25, December 10, 2017 (UTC) :::It's clear now, I just think the "appearance" list should be enough to identify this, but of course this opinion doesn't matter if you've been missing something to categorize them. I updated your description for the category, could you take a look if it's under your intention for it? Also, since the category is "Comic Canon", shouldn't the canon aspect of the article be taken in account? I noticed a non-canon article included in this tag. :::Ellesy (talk) 23:34, December 10, 2017 (UTC) :Please keep "Comic Canon" under old one, as it is not only in the TV series, but Comics as well. Once again, there maybe people who don't realize the "Appearances" title could be from a comic or an episode. I really wish you could let this go, as I feel like I've already looked the other way on a lot of changes you've made to the Wiki since my hiatus; and a single category added to comic book related articles shouldn't be that big of a deal. Thanks. QueenBuffy 00:34, December 11, 2017 (UTC) :Sorry about my insistence, it wasn't intentional. I wasn't trying to oppose this decision, I was sharing these questions in attempt to be constructive, but I understand now my behavior wasn't necessary in this case. If there's any change I've made that shouldn't be part of this Wikia, of course you can let me know. :Ellesy (talk) 01:12, December 11, 2017 (UTC) Infobox Images Because I'm so OCD about cohesiveness, I have a question about the infobox images. I guess during my hiatus, I didn't realize some of the images were being changed to the more vertical/long promo images and not the usual box sized images we've always used. Now I notice some are promo images and others are screencap/box images. I would prefer having one or the other. Which would you prefer? Make them all promo/longer/larger images. or Make them all screencap/boxy sized images? QueenBuffy 20:01, December 10, 2017 (UTC) ::Hey, I'm the one responsible for this change. I've first noticed some prominent Angel episodes had a gallery section for the promotional stills, and the main picture included an official image when available; also, wikias about more recent television shows also adopt this preference. So I've been adding galleries for promotional stills for every Buffy episodes, giving preference to official pictures in place of fan made, low resolution screen shots as the main image (also adding "appearances" lists, surprisingly often absent, and standardizing the main description/introduction). The downside for this change could be that this is not applicable to all articles, in special earlier episodes, since there aren't always promotional stills available, but I don't think it should a problem. Also, one detail: these pictures vary in landscape and portrait positions, I just often choose portraits because it makes the image clear (and, honestly, prettier) with these boxes' dimensions. ::I've also made this change for official images in some character's pages, when possible. I've been filling main characters' galleries (so far Buffy, Anya, Tara, Willow, Giles, Spike, Scooby Gang, and Faith; about to begin Xander's) with official pictures, both seasons' photo shoots and episodes stills, to document these promos. But I've also been including in these pages every unofficial screen shot in a separate section, to make it easier to browse among the wikia's media content (and avoid image duplicates). ::Ellesy (talk) 22:31, December 10, 2017 (UTC) :::Yeah I've never seen a Wiki that has used portrait sized images for their episode infobox. Honestly I don't know what to think about it. I've usually always done the infobox pics, trying to rotate them out every so often (like I just did with Anyas). Like I said, I'd be willing to accept the portrait promo images as episode infobox images if the other admins and bureaucrat does, but as you said, it doesn't leave much cohesiveness if we can't do that on every page, and that in-lies an issue. I'd like to have either one or the other. QueenBuffy 22:35, December 10, 2017 (UTC) :::My vote is on giving preference to anything official, and improvise with screen captures only when there's no other option. And we don't know, maybe these episodes supposedly without promotional pictures simply became rare with the years and it's just a matter to find them. Some characters' promo shoots I just have access through magazine scans, and vary the quality in each fan archive I browse, for example. :::Ellesy (talk) 22:44, December 10, 2017 (UTC) :I don't know. I guess it's just my OCD. I can't stand having some episode pages with portrait and others with landscape. But I'll wait and let the others have their say once they come and read this. This is why in the guidelines I tell people not to change infobox images until checking with an admin/bureau first (but I know you weren't aware of it at the time). So yeah, we'll wait and see what the others say. QueenBuffy 22:47, December 10, 2017 (UTC) I prefer promo images. They just look nicer. OwnerMan (talk) 11:56, December 16, 2017 (UTC) ::::Going back to this again... I just wanted to say. I don't mind the promo image, as LONG as they pertain to the image. Sometimes I go to the page to try and remember what the ep is about, and the promo image of just Buffy standing there does nothing to trigger my memory. I think it should at least be an image that pertains to the episode's theme. QueenBuffy 14:34, March 17, 2019 (UTC) Relationships I've noticed that the "relationships" sections tend to take half of the main character's pages, making them long, heavy, and even tiresome while reading/editing. The "Buffy Summers" article already has the derivative page "Buffy Summers/Relationships", so I'd like to know what you think about having these separate "relationships" articles for all major characters, in the same way we already have for galleries whenever they're too long for a character's main page. Ellesy (talk) 01:56, March 14, 2018 (UTC) App and discussions I received a message from staff asking for the addition of Buffyverse Wiki to the . But, for this, it'd be necessary that the wiki have enabled, something the staff itself turns on. They also noted that, since we're currently using wiki-style forums, nothing else would change, it'd just be an addition that the current active users can use or ignore as they wish. We could act as moderators to the discussion ourselves, or have help from . I intent on accepting our inclusion on the app, as well as being a discussion moderator myself, at least initially, but first I'd like to know if it's okay with everybody. Ellesy (talk) 18:13, January 13, 2019 (UTC) Images both Gallery and Categories Ok, so we didn't have a single "Images of comics" or "Images from comics" etc. Since everything else is "of" like "Images of Xander", I went ahead and made Images of comics for us to use on images from the comic book series. We'll need to phase out "comic book interiors" over to "Images of comics" when we find the time. I started moving Animations to Images of animations. Also, I was thinking about the idea of making under Galleries, also the actor galleries? What are your thoughts? I've seen them on every other Wikia. Just some past and maybe present images? Like we could do something like this Cordettes/Gallery but make it Sarah Michelle Gellar/Gallery and then a link to the actors galleries on their page? I don't know. I guess it could make way more work since now we have to go category tag comic book images, but just an idea. QueenBuffy 02:03, April 5, 2019 (UTC) :What about (and related: ), and adding it like you suggest? -- compleCCity -- You talkin' to me? -- cC -- 03:57, April 5, 2019 (UTC) First, as you may not have noticed, not everything is "Images of". It exclusively refers to characters or crew members. As example of this, we have the image categories "screenshots", "promotional images", "logos", "images from Buffy the Vampire Slayer", "administrative images", "reference book covers", "novel covers", among many others. The prefix is used only when applicable, which is not the case of any of these categories. Second, as you may not know, "comic book covers" and "comic book interiors" refer to not only two distinct type of images, but two very distinctive use of licenses. It'd be like mixing screenshots and DVD covers into one. The category "images of comics" could maybe be included along these categories, similarly to the current use of "images from Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (included both along "screenshots" and "promotional images" when referring to episodes), but it'd be incorrect to replace two unrelated categories. Finally, an observation: "images of animations" is a contradictory phrasing. Animation may be considered a type of image (as the previous category "animations" was affiliated to the category "images"), but "image of animations" could only refer to a frame from what was originally animated, which is not the case. As mentioned above, forcing the prefix "images of" is also unnecessary considering that its use is already a minority among image subcategories. On the matter of actor galleries, I'm against since it opens the possibility of the wiki hosting thousands of pictures that don't add anything to the Buffyverse theme. If created, it should have at least a number of maximum images determined. An alternative already being applied includes only behind the scenes pictures from the series, as seem in articles Joss Whedon#Gallery and April Weeden#Gallery. Ellesy (talk) 03:59, April 12, 2019 (UTC)